From: Gennadiy Rozental (rogeeff_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-10-16 17:08:32
"Beman Dawes" <bdawes_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
> Gennadiy Rozental wrote:
>> "Beman Dawes" <bdawes_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
>>>> Can you give me an example. It looks like unrelated issue.
>>> Gennadiy, I've asked Eric Niebler to revert your recent changes. We
>>> can't tolerate this sort of wholesale breakage of the trunk.
>> It took me all but 5 min after report to fix it and commit. Latest
>> of the trunk should've work (everything by John issue, which I can't
> The smoke tests run at revision 40093 still were showing a lot of
> failures. The new tests are running now.
Can't comment on these without seeing errors. I am running unit tests on NT
All my tests passed before I commited last night.
>> How can you expect me to make any changes? I am trying to be as
>> responsive as possible.
> The expectation is that changes to a foundation library like test that
> is part of our testing infrastructure will be very well tested before
> they are committed to the trunk.
> We need to do a postmortem to figure out why your testing didn't
> determine that there was a problem before you did a commit.
> What tests did you run?
My unit tests
> On what platform?
> Did you add a new test to detect whatever failed?
What failed? Issue with infinite recursion was bug in registration system. I
did not notice it first bacause gcc fails silently on NT. But I did fixed
last night not long after it was commited. :: before longjump is platform
> What other steps can we take in the future to prevent this wholesale
> breakage from happening again?
Independent library versioning would help. I can develop and see test
results independently of anyone else.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk